Research ArticleAuthors:Victor Samuel, Francisca Oliviera The 2026 High-Level Political Forum reviewed SDG 9 (Industry, Innovation and Infrastructure) and SDG 17 (Partnerships for the Goals) at a moment when only 36 per cent of Sustainable Development Goal targets are on track and the field is saturated with progress diagnoses. This report argues that the scarce and valued contribution now is not another assessment of how far the world has fallen short but usable implementation guidance that helps countries and civil-society organisations translate means-of-implementation commitments into operational delivery. Drawing on the outcomes of the 2026 ministerial declaration, the Financing for Sustainable Development Report 2026, and the Sevilla Commitment adopted at FfD4, the report identifies the specific implementation gaps in the finance, technology, capacity-building, and partnership domains that constrain SDG 9 and 17 acceleration. It then introduces a practical framework, the Acceleration Delivery Cycle, and demonstrates how two digital tools, the SDG Impact Mapper and AdvocacyOS, both components of the AUN Digital ecosystem, can be deployed to close the gap between MoI commitments and on-the-ground results. The report concludes with a Partnership Effectiveness Matrix that maps the most common weaknesses of multi-stakeholder partnerships for the Goals against toolkit-enabled responses, offering a concrete contribution to the acceleration agenda that is actionable rather than merely analytical.
Research ArticleThe adoption of the Pact for the Future at the September 2024 Summit of the Future has produced a major multilateral governance reform mandate, encompassing twenty actions on Security Council reform, General Assembly revitalisation, international financial architecture redesign, and strengthened cooperation with emerging technologies. Yet the Pact's adoption also exposes a structural tension that conventional reform debates struggle to address: the gap between the complexity, velocity and interdependence of contemporary global challenges and the rigidity of institutional architectures designed for earlier historical conditions. This article, the foundational theory contribution to the Adaptive Global Governance (AGG) research programme, argues that governance adaptiveness constitutes a distinct analytical construct that existing scholarship on representation, effectiveness and resilience does not adequately capture. Synthesising complex adaptive systems theory, adaptive governance scholarship from socio-ecological systems research, regime complexity literature and networked multilateralism, the article develops a four-capacity conceptual architecture — anticipatory, responsive, inclusive and learning — that together constitute the adaptive capacity of a governance system. It then introduces the Governance Adaptiveness Index (GAI), a provisional composite measurement architecture that operationalises these capacities through indicator selection, normalisation, scoring, weighting and aggregation rules made transparent for subsequent validation. The article illustrates the framework's potential diagnostic utility by mapping the Multilateralism Index 2024 onto the four capacities, revealing a distinctive pattern in which state participation has remained robust while performance has declined across every domain and inclusivity has broadly improved. The article outlines a multi-phase validation pathway, addresses conceptual, methodological and political-economy limitations, and identifies normative trade-offs between adaptiveness and accountability. The article does not claim that the GAI has been empirically validated; it presents a conceptual and provisional methodological foundation for the AGG programme's subsequent calibration, case-study and policy phases.
Research ArticleAs the international community approaches the midpoint of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, available evidence indicates that progress on the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) is seriously off track. While financing deficits, pandemic disruption, and geopolitical instability are widely recognised obstacles, this paper argues that a further, less systematically examined condition also shapes implementation: the gap between formal SDG commitments and the governance arrangements required to deliver them. The paper defines the governance gap as the measurable distance between the institutional, procedural, and normative requirements for effective SDG implementation, as articulated in the 2030 Agenda, and the actual state of governance arrangements and practices in a given jurisdiction. It then develops the Governance Gap Assessment Matrix (GGAM), a structured framework comprising five dimensions—normative, institutional, operational, data and accountability, and participatory—assessed across three levels: formal, functional, and outcome-linked. For each of the resulting fifteen cells, the paper proposes indicators, operational definitions, evidence sources, and provisional scoring anchors, and it introduces two derived measures: a Governance Readiness Score (higher values indicate stronger readiness) and a Governance Gap Score (its transparent complement). The paper positions the GGAM against existing instruments, including the Worldwide Governance Indicators, the OECD Policy Coherence for Sustainable Development framework, the SDG 16 monitoring architecture, and the VNR Quality Index, and illustrates its potential application through a qualitative synthesis of evidence from the Voluntary National Review (VNR) process and related literature. The paper is explicitly positioned as a conceptual and foundational framework rather than a systematic empirical study; the illustrative evidence is used to demonstrate analytical utility, not to establish statistically representative findings. Limitations concerning measurement subjectivity, data availability, contextual generalisability, and causal inference are discussed. The paper concludes that the GGAM offers a transparent, replicable scaffold for subsequent empirical validation and for applied governance-gap assessment by governments, civil society, and international monitoring bodies, and that governance is a cross-cutting enabling condition that can substantially influence whether financial, technical, and institutional resources translate into effective SDG implementation.
Research ArticleAuthors:Francisca Oliviera, Priyasa Banerjee, Victor Samuel
Advocacy Unified Network (AUN) | Opus Publica
Research ArticleAccording to this report, the International Criminal Court (ICC), founded on the Rome Statute, must overcome jurisdictional challenges to pursue crimes committed around the world. Through a comparative review of case studies, including those in Darfur, Uganda, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, and Libya, this study reveals common difficulties. It looks into how they might impact the ICC's effectiveness, reputation, and capacity to fulfil its purpose. The study sheds insight into the jurisdiction's complexity, covering matters like receiving national government support, handling security challenges, gaining access to witnesses, managing conflicting judicial processes, and resolving intricate disagreements. These issues greatly impact the ICC's capacity to look into crimes, collect evidence, hold offenders accountable, and give victims justice. The research clarifies the unique jurisdictional issues faced in each circumstance by analysing the case studies. It emphasises how crucial it is to comprehend the logistical, political, and legal challenges that the ICC faces when operating in various settings. The analysis of these issues sheds light on the wider consequences for the ICC's credibility and effectiveness as an agency with a mandate to advance international justice and end impunity. The results of this study help us comprehend jurisdictional disputes' complexity and how it affects how the ICC operates on a deeper level. The study offers a platform for comparative analysis and highlights potential areas for ICC operations improvement by highlighting similarities and variations among the case studies. The analysis is used to inform the research's policy suggestions for resolving jurisdictional issues. The legislative framework should be strengthened, cooperation channels should be improved, investigative and operational skills should be increased, and regional and international cooperation should be encouraged. States, international organisations, civic societies, and academic institutions must work together to implement these proposals. The study concludes that even though jurisdictional issues offer big obstacles, we shouldn't let them get in the way of bringing criminals to justice worldwide. The ICC can overcome these obstacles and carry out its duty of guaranteeing responsibility, defending human rights, and promoting international justice through consistent commitment, collaboration, and adopting effective policies.
